Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 14, 2013 5:30am-6:01am PDT

5:30 am
we can go to public comment. this is an acknowledging from you to bill it's on february 20th and it states in full last week the staff incriminated on the woosh agreement and puc agrees with the addendum we ask that bill expedite his draft do you remember this? >> yes. >> again, no environmental impact and are you on with the eir addendum came to we don't have anything to worry about here? i'm still fine with the way the
5:31 am
addendum came out and my e-mail says we made adjustments and as far as the environmental impacts are concerned yes do we have other issues we need to address durable the construction yes, but those are different >> in this report you didn't feel it a need to send to planning? we created that four ourselves to negotiate with the developer if this project was to be approved and the long-term books next to our infrastructure >> and did you have discussions with anyone senior to you about whether to encourage the
5:32 am
department to put out addendums we have nothing here. >> i don't understand your question. >> in other words your decision to tell the puc were your opinions and - and there was a lot of discussion with staff within the city attorney's office that the e-mail was vetted among us it was our collective conclusion the eir was fine as draft. >> and the controversy was the content of the e-mail and you had to tell me the planning depth of the risks. >> those risks are all ones we
5:33 am
would have to work internally. there's the utility risks from the construction and then there's environmental risks but that document is for our use. we did have confidence with the planning department but again they're looking not long-term construction >> if there are real attractiveness this box you don't feel this is relevant to the eir. >> it's purely a eir department. >> you're saying this is a puc issue and the planning department didn't need to address it? >> interesting way your
5:34 am
freaking it actually, you know, we did make sure and this is an addendum it does talk about the construction of the project the closeness of the project to our assets and some of the measurements that would be put in place and there's a state law quoted. you can't endanger the neighbors structures >> as you do in any promise you basically have to protect ever indemnify the adjacent property owners that were i think we can go into the issue but from my prospective this report suggests it should have been relevant to the impact report that's information we would have wanted
5:35 am
here but things are as they or so with that supervisor campos. >> there's no actually mr. carolyn you're doing so well, i want to make sure you're giving us information. you heard earlier that you heard how she feels this report should have been given to the planning department prior to the director signing that addendum today disagree with her on that? >> if that's her opinion no. >> did you ever tell anyone at planning the puc had spent one-hundred and 5 thousand dollars on this report?
5:36 am
so it never occurred to you to let planning know you have spent in much money on this report? >> it's to inform us on how to commit on their document. >> were you ever instructed not to share this information? >> no, i wasn't. >> anything else anyone want to say we'll go to public comment. >> let's move to public comment. there anyone who wishes to speak? >> oh, comment cards i didn't.
5:37 am
>> i just want to remind everyone you have 2 minutes. >> good afternoon supervisors. appreciate our diligence in this matter we have a 75 year history of providing surveyers and others in the city i don't know whether to wear a suit or whatever. they're maybe voices no option to this building project and they may have some concerns dealing effective with the forest north main
5:38 am
5:39 am
>> we hope the committee will let this project move forward and we love the project and the love the challenges. thank you. good afternoon michael with local 6 in san francisco. we do hundreds of projects in this city when you look at the ditch it's 73 feet deep almost 5 acres and sewers going go across the city and across the center the san francisco and within 3 feet of those facilities.
5:40 am
and what are the supervisors going to do to fix the hundreds of miles of sewers in this city. those pictures you showed earlier those are failures of the infrastructure that needs to be repaired and youd lo at all the facilities to be up deteriorated. and rather than worrying about about the forest rain to be - without construction our infrastructure is at that >> good afternoon. i'm here to read a statement from the
5:41 am
attorneys. >> p there are safety issues as troebl as this is it shows that more information is needed that has not been forthcoming. her second points deals with the ballot measure. the route ballot proposed measures would limit liability in under or adjacent to the proposed project yet the sewer facility serves one quarter of san francisco. how can liability be so limited are the citizens being played the fool by being asked to expand their liability
5:42 am
limiting others and under the measure who's to be liable the developer or the citizens i fear the latter and i think her fears have come true. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i'm president of the iron works they don't repair the sewers but i refer to my brothers who have been dealing with those issues for years and i think the important thing here is i'm hoping this is not allocate attempt to delay a project that should be moving forward and i have confidence that the puc
5:43 am
will be able to address the issues here today. i want to say that everyone knows fromrd the newspapers but the tower cranes are popping up all over the industry but that's not going to help our economy in san francisco. i'm hoping we can move forward in a timely manner so people can recover their retirement benefits. that's my message let's move forward and make this project happen >> good afternoon supervisors tim on behalf of the action coalition.
5:44 am
imagine our surprise that in a city of hundreds and hundreds of tall building and bearing structures and utilities we popped up one that is at such great risk such a situation here. at the very same time time the bay district is moving ahead and the central subway is going to be moving ahead. you could have a 5 minute google search. it's amazing to see all the attention that this is getting. all this attention being fblgd
5:45 am
on this one project. the level of questions being asked could only makes sense if there were a technical question rather than a political question the one thing i didn't hear did anything the city departments differentiate where best practic practices. i worked 10 years and helped write which of those reports i cannot understand the technical issues how small it is this is a very standard small issue we have look good engineers and we pay them this is a political hearing on eight
5:46 am
washington project. thank you >> good afternoon. local union 104. i agree i understand you're certain about this sewer but i mean as we saw we have bigger wishes an aging structure here. you heard the developer say he's got qualified engineers and i think we should look at the overall benefits of this project it's going to revitalize that area a dirt lot that's currently there it's going to be a good project i hope we'll move forward and revitalize that area
5:47 am
>> good afternoon. i'm with gipson dunn and i've been involved in this project. and i want to clarify some of the eir issues. this is a very typical project being built in the city of seismic risks so forth. and i concluded that the building would comply with all safety and it's impact on its safety structures and have found the project would have to go through a detailed project design. and it concluded there was not a significant impact because those codes are to protect the city to
5:48 am
impact other structures. as part of the eir structure itself the eir that was in front of of the board there was actually a lengthy discussion and again, it reiterated the fact it would comply with the codes. the project was approved and after that time we move forward forward with some kind of entitlement easement. and it also found that the issue study was correct in relying on the codes and the puc conditioned it's approval of the conditions to be completely satisfied and they were protected so because of all that there was no adverse impact.
5:49 am
and puc worked internally and continues until this day >> thanks. >> hi i'm the geotechnical engineer on the promise so i'd like to comment on the a come report. as was stated earlier those studies are done after the issue planning has been that completed. so the report and our studies actually were done a lot earlier then was into done in the process so we're ahead of time. the details that were raise in the report are part of the normal process and each one of the issues are going to be
5:50 am
addressed in the final design and where the checks and balances come into effect are after the risks and issues have been addressed so that's the checks and balances in this process >> again thank you. >> hello, i'm mark and i'm with k hill contractors with the building projects once it's approved. a couple of thing is safety or monitoring we as the general contractors are extremely concerned about safety and have drafts in working with the pucs
5:51 am
and, you know, just confirming everything that the previous speaker said. we've been work with the developer, you know, you've got some topnotch geotech shoring designer we are even taken the step we've got some top level insurance contractors that look at if and this is been going on for quite some. and also it seemed like it's very pointed questions about hiding material and for the most part we've been very open about it the materials and that
5:52 am
>> thank you. any other comments from the public? >> just a couple of follow-up questions i've been thinking about the testimony we've heard today and there's risks that could cause ruptures that we're told could dump 20 million gallons of human wastes on the our streets doesn't that risk you should consider. >> generally no, that was something that would be handled in the engineering of the project. >> i appreciate the answer.
5:53 am
how about part of the exciting site has been labeled hazard waste >> that's in the report and when our roache cubic miles then it would be covered by the department of public health would be supervising that. >> so we have another department to fold into this. >> i'd like to ask a question to i understand there were two or more city attorneys here and ask some questions there a surrogate around short term liability if something were to happen and i'm not sure who would have been to answer it.
5:54 am
perhaps you. do you think it is possible for an agreement between the city that would be able to hold the developer fully liable can that be drafted? >> city attorney's office and the pucs general council i didn't hear the question directly so the question is is it possible to have an agreement to impose liability i think under this instance the state codes impose liable on a participant that is constructing and excavating below 9 feeto
5:55 am
there's a statutory liability imposed but with that encroachment policy that's before the boards that the utility commission passed on subject to being an conceptual agreement between the developer and contractor and is common law negligence to use the building code atkins - >> i agree with you that's the goal by you heard earlier in the
5:56 am
hearing it's quite libel that the be liability would history to the homeowners after the sale of units and i feel very sorry for those building owners and worry that's not a deep in such pocket if anything were to handle to this type of liability what would the city be on the hook for if this happened? that you with respect to the homeowners association is that the pipe will resign under the paperwork and it will retain the responsibility of homeowners and the only thing that could happen at that time, is i'm assuming the building is going to knock the box off it's foundation.
5:57 am
>> that's the assumption but according to the report that the puc go is reporting it's not being built in a way to shift that could knock the sewer to the point of damaging it. >> we need to do a seismic report done so that's our structural engineers b will be doing. but that the liability after construction is going to be related to any activities that happen on the surface so puc has continual monitoring people who do - it's a significant
5:58 am
liability and infrastructure that's why in the agreement there's all those limitations for approval if anybody is acting on top of the box >> i differ with our krashgs or characterization of the box after construction the completed believe may also effect the seismic and the soil and water maybe poisoned and there maybe increased liability to the puc since the completed believe is in pretty close proximity it
5:59 am
could knock out the sewer main and it could result in sludge 20 million gallons of waste on the streets of san francisco. >> not that it's not possible to build a building next to the box. >> how many years this project been going on? it's been looked at close to a dictate. engineer studied the result and i'll say as a comment >> i'm not an engineer i'm telling you my basis for the
6:00 am
utility agreement the commission could protect it's decreases any participating in the process and it's technically not my position to address and if it's not calory we'll be observing the port and puc to make sure we're minimizing the attractiveness the city and i will be talking to the city attorneyors to make sure that the city assets will be fully protected by any unnatural activity that ruptures that facility. that we take every precaution to make sure our sewer assets